Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 16th day of December, 2002, at 6:30 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: Klausing, Kough, Schroeder, Maschka, <br />Kysy1yczyn <br />and the following were absent: None <br /> <br />Council Member Klausing introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 10060 <br />A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 12 FOOT AND A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO SECTION <br />1009.03M OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE <br />FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 COUNTY ROAD B2 (PF 3446). <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Grace Church Roseville has requested a variance to Section 1009.3M of the <br />Roseville City Code to replace its two existing monument signs; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Grace Church Roseville is located at 1310 County Road B2 and legally <br />described at as: <br /> <br />NEEDS CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PID Number: 10-29-23-42-0004. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1004.03M of the Roseville City Code requires a 15 foot minimum <br />setback for a ground mounted sign from any property line; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Grace Church Roseville has two existing signs that currently do not meet <br />the requires setback (one sign is located three feet from the property line along Hamline Avenue <br />and the other sign is located within the County Road B2 right-of-way); and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Grace Church Roseville desires to replace said signs with two larger <br />modernized signs. The sign along Ham1ine Avenue requires a 12 foot variance to Section <br />1009.03M and the sign along County Road B2 requires a 15 foot variance to Section 1009.03M; <br />and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br />Grace Church variance request to Section 1009.03M of the Roseville City Code on December 4, <br />2002, and recommended (6-0) approval ofthe request, based on findings outlined in Section 5 <br />and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated December 4, 2002. <br /> <br />1 <br />